Trial Court must allow witness summons for proving contents of documents exhibited subject to proof.

The petitioner (original plaintiff) filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Principal Civil Court, Babara.

In the underlying Regular Civil Suit No. 28/2006, the Trial Court had rejected the petitioner's application (Exhibit 209) which sought the issuance of witness summons.

The petitioner contended that while certain documents (Mark 155/1 to 155/8) were produced, the court had ordered that their exhibits were subject to proof; therefore, examining witnesses was necessary to prove the contents of those documents.

At the time of the High Court hearing, the suit was already posted for final arguments.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application (Exh. 209) for issuance of witness summons to prove documents previously admitted subject to proof.

2. Whether the consensus between the petitioner and the main contesting respondent (Respondent No. 10) warrants the setting aside of the Trial Court’s order.

The court's reasoning was guided by the principle that a party must be afforded a fair opportunity to prove the contents of documents produced in evidence, especially when exhibits are granted "subject to proof".

The court relied on the precedents of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M/s. Ineos Styrolution Ltd. [2021 AIR (Guj) 12] and Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin v. Dilipbhai Bhaktiprasad Doshi [2023 (3) GLR 2404], which underscore the procedural right to summon witnesses to validate documentary evidence.

The High Court observed that the petitioner sought witness summons specifically to prove documents marked 155/1 to 155/8, which the Trial Court had accepted only on the condition that they be proved.

Respondent No. 10 (the primary contesting party) appearing through counsel, stated they had no objection to the High Court allowing the application at Exhibit 209.

Based on this consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) between the parties and the legal position established in the cited Gujarat High Court precedents, the court found that the witness summons should be issued to ensure the interest of justice and the proper adjudication of the suit.

The Court directed the Trial Judge to allow the application at Exhibit 209 and issue witness summons to the concerned individuals.

The Court clarified that all rights and contentions regarding the examination and cross-examination of these witnesses remain open to the respective parties.

Rule was made absolute.